Makes me even more greatful to be an American. No matter how whacked out your opinions are, you should still be able to voice them without fear.

Link

__________________
Success is measured in blood; yours or your enemy's.

A sad example of the way we are sleepwalking into mind-control. Criminalising opinions can mean only this.

I got no no problem with banning public incitement “to violence or hatred".

THREE YEARS imprisonment! Good lord.
The whole thing is craziness but that's even more absurd. What is the point of that?

Nothing quite says 'It's obviously the truth' like locking up anyone who denies it. Sheesh...

That sounds like a pretty sticky place for the government to go though.

How does one objectively prove whether or not someone was purposefully trying to incite "hatred"? When does condemning someone as bad or wrong become "inciting hatred" against them? How can a speaker be held responsible for the emotions of the people listening to him?
And what about calls for military intervention in Darfur. That's a call for violence isn't it?

What if I stand up and say "Those damn, damn Nazi's under Hitler! How I hate them! Any sane person would hate them and what they did. I'm glad we crushed their facist army and if any more Nazi's like that rise up, we should crush their armies again!"
That's pretty blatent incitement of hatred and violence. Do I go to prison for that?

I really don't see the need to back up historical events with law. If we make a law to make it illegal to deny one injustice in the recorded history, will there be laws about all of them? And what about those events that are seriously in dispute? These things should be left to the historians and not to politicians who would have more important things to do.

No you wouldn't. It's not that easy to get into prison. At first it has to be public. I private you can say whatever you want. And it has to "disturb the public peace". Threats against imaginary Nazis probably would not fall under that.

The idea behind such a ban came from the experience of the fall of the Republic of Weimar in Germany and the rise of the Nazis. It was the experience that a state can be destabilized and can fail. And hate speech and propaganda obviously played a very important role. Stuff like that for example:



In reality, such laws a rather symbolic, though. It's obviously more difficult for Nazis and other scum to promote their causes. But even these fucks are usually clever enough to find loopholes.

Freedom of expression is an important basic right, but as every right, it also has it's limits. Especially when the rights of other people are affected. There are limits to the freedom of expression in the USA, too. Ask Don Imus, Bill Maher, Howard Stern or Janet Jackson. It's just a different interpretation what's more dangerous for a society ... hate speech or Janet Jackson's nipples at the Super Bowl.

It seems I don't have to repeat the same opinions you have already pointed out. Ki'tosh.

__________________
En uneksi. I do not dream.

I don't know...people can be disturbed surprisingly easily...especially if they're neo-nazis
More seriously, I don't like that the fact that people in general happen to agree with me (and therefore aren't disturbed) somehow legalizes my statements. Popularity shouldn't be a test for deciding whether something legal or illegal.

And if the law is meant to keep the state from being 'destabilized' and 'failing' (I'm pulling from you other post here) then how is it anything other than an attempt by the government to protect it's power by supressing any threatening public ideas?
That kind of tatic might work to help keep the Nazis (or whoever) out of power, but it would work just as well to keep them in.
Is a call for a mass demonstration against the government an incitement of violence? Who gets to decide...the government?
Isn't publically calling the president a dictator or a facist (or "the devil") "inciting hatred"? Who gets to decide?

This just all sounds so very easy to abuse. Even if it works to stop the hate-mongers and racists for now, I don't see any assurance that it couldn't be used, by someone else, to imprison anyone who threatened their power.

Well, in countries like Germany there is a long time jurisdiction about such cases. "Distortion of public peace" is a legal term an not to be taken literally here. Mass demonstrations against the government are not affected at all by these laws.

No, there is no limit. In fact that Don Imus, Bill Maher, Howard Stern or Janet Jackson did nothing wrong, accroding to the constitution. That is why Don Imus, for example, was not fired for saying what he did.

__________________
Success is measured in blood; yours or your enemy's.

I´m not that informed about this legislation, but as I understand from having just seen the news, Denmark is exempt from this. We already got this kind of legislation (don´t incite violence and the likes) in our own national laws and even if we didn´t, we got special conditions on several areas within the EU cooperation, where Denmark is exempt from following the EU legislation. Good thing here, as I feel everybody should be free to express their opinions, no matter how stupid they might be.

Better to have the nutcases out in the open, than keeping them hidden somewhere.

__________________
There's no theory of evolution, only a list of creatures Chuck Norris allows to live...

Are there no laws against "obscenity"? What about child pornography? What would happen if I go to Washington , get a megaphone, praise Al Quaida and offer everybody who shoots the President $ 1,000,000? What happens when I go into a bank and tell them to give me all the money they got or I will blow up their building with the bomb in my bag? When there really is NO limit at all, then non of these cases should be problematic at all.